Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I find it difficult to believe that an old F-1 could be refurbished back into service... but backward-engineering it to find the stuff that's not recorded in the paperwork to reproduce it might well be very valuable.

__________________
"Some days are better than others. They say that where I come from."
"Loudly, I imagine, on the day you left."
(Blake's 7 - Rumours of Death)

Awesome article. The purpose was to get an accurate digital model to be able to use the F-1 design data and use that information in order to use modern computer modeling to improve upon current liquid-fuel engine design. Firing part of the old engine was just an afterthought and not the reason they did it. Am I the only one that actually read the article? lol

These will replace the SRBs. each Liquid fueled booster (LFB) will have two f-1 engines. The booster is tentatively named Pyrios, after one of the fiery horses that pulled the god Apollo's chariot; the engine is being called the F-1B.

Now if you recall, Energiya was similar, in that it had hydrogen burning (RD-0120) engines were placed under the Russian external Tank (Energiya itself) rendering Buran just one of many possible payloads. The booster used four thin strap-ons each with one RD-170 (four nozzle) engine. Pyrios will be fatter, and have two F-1 B engines

^ Well that's just bad naming, since Pyrios is only one horse (not two), and it didn't pull Apollo's chariot, it pulled the chariot of Helios, whose other favorite horses to drag the sun across the sky were Phlegon, Aeos, and Aethon. So the new boosters should at least have different names for left and right. I'd go with calling the two F-1B boosters "Pyrios" and "Phlegon" and Thiokol's two solid boosters "Aeos" and "Aethon". I'd also name the SLS after either Demeter or Circe, who both have some associations with pork.

The confusion of Apollo and Helios is pretty interesting. Obviously Apollo couldn't be pulling the sun across the sky or the world would've gone dark every time he was in the countryside spreading plague, stirring up trouble, or banging chicks, which would be a major plot hole. The confusion seems to stem from the word Phoebus ("bright"), which could refer to Helios, but also was used for "phoebus Apollo." Perhaps this is a bit like confusing the sun with Cher's ex-husband, but in any event it seems to have really taken hold in the Victorian era.

^ The F-1B's haven't been decided on. It's just an option that a contractor is bidding.

I agree that NASA should move away from the RS-25E's, which despite modifications for expendability are still too expensive for anyone other than NASA. The RS-68's aren't that much better, especially given their much lower ISP.

They should probably start pursuing the recent innovation of using a swirling oxygen counterflow (injected upward from near the throat to swirl around the sides of the combustion chamber, providing cooling without built in passages).

I'd also name the SLS after either Demeter or Circe, who both have some associations with pork.

You owe me a new keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee.

Seriously, though, I think NASA is just going to leave it as "SLS". They have always had a sort of fetishistic obsession with acronyms over the years, but it's gotten so bad over the years that they have actually started coming up with acronyms for things that are supposed to have proper names. I've actually heard some NASA officials referring to the Columbus laboratory "the CSL." I've also been informed that some acronyms actually contain other acronyms (The "PICA Principle" for example stands for "Pre Integrated Columbus APM" where "APM" stands for "Attached pressurized module.")